Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 286 Pa. Super. 551 - Stringer v. Kaytes

286 Pa. Super. 551 - Stringer v. Kaytes’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
December 1998
most recently cited

17 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Ruczynski v. Jesray Construction Corp. · 277 Pa. Super. 256 - Corcoran v. Fiorentino · 250 Pa. Super. 378 - INTERN. TEL. & TEL. v. Phila. Elec. Co. · Coffey v. Faix

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In those cases, such as the one sub judice, where the requisite notice has not been provided, we believe the most reasonable procedure is to decide the question of the promptness of the petition on the basis of the date when the plaintiff received actual notice, either from the prothonotary or otherwise, of the dismissal of the action. If the court determines that under the circumstances the petition to reinstate has been timely filed, then it should proceed to determine whether the other two conditions necessary to demonstrate good cause have been shown. Instantly, as noted earlier, the lower court deemed it unnecessary to reach the question of whether the condi tions set forth in the International Telephone [v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 250 Pa.Super. 378 , 378 A.2d 986 (Pa.Super.1977) ] case for establishing good cause had been satisfied. As stated above, we find this to be error. It is our conclusion that the court below must decide whether plaintiff has satisfied those conditions, bearing in mind that the question of the timeliness of the petition to reinstate must be measured from the date plaintiff first actually learned that her action had been dismissed.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Rule 130. Disposition of Inactive Cases (1) Whenever in any civil action a certificate of Readiness has not been filed and no proceedings have been docketed in the Prothonotary’s Office for a period of two (2) successive years, the action shall be dismissed with prejudice, for failure to prosecute under the provisions of this rule, and the docket so marked, provided that no less than sixty (60) days’ notice be given by publication once in The Legal Intelligencer. * >H * <5 5k 4s (4) Dismissal under (1) or (2) is subject to the right of any party to reinstate the action by written application for good cause shown after such dismissal within three (3) months of the date of dismissal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.